@ScanIAm: Sadly, no matter how trustworthy the CA, that won't help if a company just gives its private key over to NSA et al.

That said I really do agree that we need a new trust chain because I would be surprised if at least one of VeriSign et al. either isn't issuing the NSA MiTM certificates (of course, if that were to get out, nobody would ever trust them again) or hasn't been so incompetent the NSA have an MiTM cert without anybody knowing...

Also, I liked Lavabit's response:

Lavabit wrote:

In an interesting work-around, Levison complied the next day by turning over the private SSL keys as an 11 page printout in 4-point type.

@ScanIAm: Sadly, no matter how trustworthy the CA, that won't help if a company just gives its private key over to NSA et al.

That said I really do agree that we need a new trust chain because I would be surprised if at least one of VeriSign et al. either isn't issuing the NSA MiTM certificates (of course, if that were to get out, nobody would ever trust them again) or hasn't been so incompetent the NSA have an MiTM cert without anybody knowing...

Not really. The response was "This is not what was asked, and is contempt of the court order". It's like paying your taxes in pennies delivered in a skip and deposited outside an IRS office. It's not allowed because it's not reasonable.

The court ordered him to turn over his SSL keys. He chose to take the piss and get in the way of a criminal investigation that was extremely time-sensitive and was affecting national security.

They're going to throw the book at him, and he's going to lose; his actions were clearly designed to obstruct the court, and he's also just leaked a series of documents protected by a gag-order. He's probably going to go to jail, and frankly he deserves to.

Not really. The response was "This is not what was asked, and is contempt of the court order". It's like paying your taxes in pennies delivered in a skip and deposited outside an IRS office. It's not allowed because it's not reasonable.

In the UK if HMRC were to get a court order forcing you to pay your taxes you would be entitled to leave a skip of pound coins or above at their goods in address...

The court ordered him to turn over his SSL keys. He chose to take the piss and get in the way of a criminal investigation that was extremely time-sensitive and was affecting national security.

1) While IANAL, and I don't know what the exact wording of the court order was, he DID provide the information the court asked for in a format that they could use. Unless there's legal grounds to say that format wasn't good enough you're on very shaky ground saying it doesn't count just because they didn't like it. He has to comply with the law, he doesn't have to render assistance beyond that. (To go back to your previous analogy this is precisely why we have the concept of legal tender for settlement of court enforced debts.)

2) This didn't affect national security, there's almost no doubt it's the Snowden case. It's the authorities trying to shut down somebody who's embarrassed them.

3) The US government doesn't seem to respect the law in this area much, so why should Levison?

They're going to throw the book at him, and he's going to lose; his actions were clearly designed to obstruct the court, and he's also just leaked a series of documents protected by a gag-order. He's probably going to go to jail, and frankly he deserves to.

1) They were unsealed by a federal judge, they were not leaked by Levison... and it is necessary that they were unsealed, for the sake of open justice.

2) As I understand the article all Levison is liable for is $15,000 of fines for the 3 days the service operated past the deadline. Once he ceased to operate the service clearly no further legal obligation to provide an intercept can exist since there is no service to intercept. To suggest that shutting down the service, instead of providing the intercept, is contempt is clearly preposterous.

3) I don't think Ladar Levison necessarily believes he'll win the court case, although of course he hopes to. He only loses when, like Bradley Manning or Winston Smith, the boot has so ground into his face that he has capitulated to their ideology. He wins if the court of public opinion sides with him and forces changes.

National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden possesses enough information to cause more damage to the United States government than "anyone else has ever had in the history" of the country, according to the journalist who first reported the former contractor's leaked documents.

Two U.S. intelligence officials say members of virtually every terrorist group, including core al-Qaida, are attempting to change how they communicate, based on what they are reading in the media, to hide from U.S. surveillance — the first time intelligence officials have described which groups are reacting to the leaks. The officials spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to speak about the intelligence matters publicly.

The officials wouldn't go into details on how they know this, whether it's terrorists switching email accounts or cellphone providers or adopting new encryption techniques, but a lawmaker briefed on the matter said al-Qaida's Yemeni offshoot, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, has been among the first to alter how it reaches out to its operatives.

Shortly after Edward Snowden leaked documents about the secret NSA surveillance programs, chat rooms and websites used by like-minded extremists and would-be recruits advised users how to avoid NSA detection, from telling them not to use their real phone numbers to recommending specific online software programs to keep spies from tracking their computers' physical locations.

You might not agree with what the NSA does, but please don't pretend that Edward Snowden is some kind of martyr helping out the US and that his crimes are victimless. He's an egomaniac who has bought his fame at the cost of irreparable destruction to the US's defenses against terrorism.

Not really. The response was "This is not what was asked, and is contempt of the court order". It's like paying your taxes in pennies delivered in a skip and deposited outside an IRS office. It's not allowed because it's not reasonable.

The court ordered him to turn over his SSL keys. He chose to take the piss and get in the way of a criminal investigation that was extremely time-sensitive and was affecting national security.

They're going to throw the book at him, and he's going to lose; his actions were clearly designed to obstruct the court, and he's also just leaked a series of documents protected by a gag-order. He's probably going to go to jail, and frankly he deserves to.

I don't agree. It's not like giving testimony in non-English language would result in contemptation of the court. Also giving data (like accounting documents) in paper is a proper way to handle information to law enforcements. There's no rule specifically forbid handing anything out in paper form. This argument is a bit weak... if acceptable at all.

I don't agree. It's not like giving testimony in non-English language would result in contemptation of the court. Also giving data (like accounting documents) in paper is a proper way to handle information to law enforcements. There's no rule specifically forbid handing anything out in paper form. This argument is a bit weak... if acceptable at all.

Firstly, all testimony in US courts is in English, albeit sometimes via a court-appointed translator.

But secondly, and more importantly, this is the thing that computer scientists often forget about law: Criminal law is about motive, and reasonable doubtnot about satisfying a series of checkboxes or 100% undeniable proof. You can't squirm your way out of complying with the law by pretending that you were acting in good faith when it is plain for everyone to see that you weren't.

Working out if he obstructed justice isn't a question of asking "which of these checkboxes of absolutely concrete 100% foolproof laws did he break?". It's "did he knowingly and maliciously get in the way of justice by trying to make a mockery of a court order?".

And the answer here is categorically yes. He knew that printing out his SSL key in an illegible point 4 font onto 11 pages was not adhering to the intention of the court order for him to yield his key to law enforcement officials, and he did so after exhausting all other avenues of time-wasting and appeals.

That is not acting in good faith to comply with the law. It's holding the law in contempt.

How do you even say things like that with a straight face? Even Glenn Greenwald (the journalist who helped Snowden) disagrees with you:

The damage is done to U.S.'s international reputation and hardly related to national security. It has been clear from day one that Snowden would not release anything that cause actual harm for U.S. security and people unless something went wrong with him. In such case the selected individuals that he trust will release all documents he handed to them.

You might not agree with what the NSA does, but please don't pretend that Edward Snowden is some kind of martyr helping out the US and that his crimes are victimless. He's an egomaniac who has bought his fame at the cost of irreparable destruction to the US's defenses against terrorism.

Name one piece of information that the information he leaks caused "irreparable destruction to the US's defenses against terrorism." other than making people of other countries more aware of U.S.'s ability to eavesdropping internet traffics. It's not like the government bodies or terrorists not knowing this before Snowden's leak. The difference is made on the ordinary people only.

The damage is done to U.S.'s international reputation and hardly related to national security. It has been clear from day one that Snowden would not release anything that cause actual harm for U.S. security and people unless something went wrong with him. In such case the selected individuals that he trust will release all documents he handed to them.

Sure. Al Quieda only embarrassed the US government on 9/11. That's why AQAP changing all of their operating procedures as a consequence of Snowden's leaks is only a case of embarrassment to the government and not a case of national security.

Name one piece of information that the information he leaks caused "irreparable destruction to the US's defenses against terrorism." other than making people of other countries more aware of U.S.'s ability to eavesdropping internet traffics. It's not like the government bodies or terrorists not knowing this before Snowden's leak. The difference is made on the ordinary people only.

Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of what the NSA does. But Edward Snowden is not a hero. He f*cked over this country pretty hard and gave our enemies a blueprint of how to do good OpSec when plotting against the west in order to make himself famous, and that's not cool.

How? Do you really think it's about "defense against terrorism" instead of "ordinary spying effort"?

Aren't it's been reported like 5+ years ago the Osama Bin Daden and his group had been avoid using any electronic method of communication for years? It's not like eavesdropping will allow them to fetch anything from void.

If I were him, I'll probably go one step further to write simple program that print the key on series of 0s and 1s. If the people assigned to type the key in mistype and the mailbox won't open, it's not my fault.

How? Do you really think it's about "defense against terrorism" instead of "ordinary spying effort"?

Yes. And often (such as in the case of Iran, China and Russia) it's not entirely clear where the boundary between counter-terrorism ends and international espionage begins. Given how Russia used nuclear material to poison a British national in London only a few years ago, how Iran sponsors Hezbollah, or how China hacks into literally thousands of US companies every day in order to steal their intellectual property which directly hurts American jobs.

Aren't it's been reported like 5+ years ago the Osama Bin Daden and his group had been avoid using any electronic method of communication for years? It's not like eavesdropping will allow them to fetch anything from void.

Osama's been pretty quiet for the past two years, I'll give you that. But a lot of that's to do with the fact that he was shot in the face by American troops and his body dumped out at sea.